4 ms·

You'd get access to a fairly large pool of the "almost wealthy" who have enough wealth saved and invested that it will grow to a nice sum over the decades, but

You'd get access to a fairly large pool of the "almost wealthy" who have enough wealth saved and invested that it will grow to a nice sum over the decades, but still need some income to avoid touching it over that period. i.e. those in leanFIRE, baristaFIRE, or coastFIRE positions.

MattGaiser 5y ago
I am curious why nobody tries to build a workforce for non urgent projects out of this group. I see charities scrimping and saving to pay for highly skilled people that they really do not need on a full time basis and must scratch my head and wonder why. You could pay 60,000 for a not great dev. Or you could pay 30,000 for a part time dev and could easily land someone who regularly earns 150K.
- vgeek 5y ago
  I've pondered the same exact thing. I've had jobs where my superiors could see my immediate impact and it was still impossible to take a reduced salary to have a 3/4 day week-- "it wouldn't be fair to everyone else" or "we'd like to have you here every day" even after my disclosing that there weren't really 40 hours of productive tasks I could do each week after automating most of my day to day. I've tried both with companies offering lower salaries with positions I'm wildly overqualified for and roles where they seemed interested but couldn't match my prior salary-- neither has worked across multiple attempts. Negotiating 1-2 days/week remote was easier than less hours for less money. From discussing with coworkers from former jobs, the people that I worked with who most want to return to office (& force their reports back, too) are those who focused on politics over productivity. Some people work better in office, some better remote. Why not actually evaluate on a case by case basis or worker's preference instead of only management's preference?
  - the_gipsy 5y ago
    Maybe this "working less" undertone of remote should be taken seriously, from both sides of the argument. As you say, it's nearly impossible to negotiate for less working hours. The only real possibility I see is freelancing/contracting, and the best bet is taking some months off (or a sabattical) - not working less days per week. With high salaries in IT naturally there came perks like flexible hours. This meant that nobody really checks if you work 8, 7, or 6 hours in a day anymore. Of course, if you'd consistently come in say for ~4h a day, then there would be trouble because Jerry over there clocks in his 8h and that wouldn't be fair. Now with remote work, the "hours worked" are mostly invisible and barely guessable by your peers and managers. The bottom line, personally, is that we want to work less time. I take a salary that is lower than FAANG in a remote startup, but I and my peers work less hours, yet our boss is happy. If I could work for 4h/d (or 3 days/week) at some corp, in office, I would do it. But that's just not gonna happen right now. And here is my hot take: I think that big corps are just too successful in squeezing out so much time from their employees, especially with the american mindset of "working hard" / crazy 80+h weeks.
colordrops 5y ago
You've nailed it. I can't afford my mortgage and kids school if I take a startup gig unless I start burning my investments. It's way too risky, especially since the investments are doing well. I totally would love to work for a startup, even do longer hours, but no one is willing to make offers for people in my class. I'd even be willing to burn some of my current investment if the startup gave a serious equity chunk, but the offers ive been seeing would require years of steady and significant growth for the equity to match my current FAANG comp. And that's just match, not exceed. Startups are way too greedy with equity.
- runako 5y ago
  > Startups are way too greedy with equity. And this has gotten worse. During the .com explosion, the war for talent saw younger engineers (<= 5 years of experience) were getting 1%-3% in companies that had already received VC funding, while also getting raises from other firms. Compared to the grants on offer today, the risk/reward is completely inverted.
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    The valuations today are just so much higher though. Pets.com, the poster child of dotcom era excess IPO'd at a $250mm valuation. Companies today are raising 2x or 3x that in their series C these days! 1Password picked up $620mm in their series C just the other day.
    - runako 5y ago
      This means the early employees today are producing more economic value for shareholders and are being paid less for creating more value! (Unless early team sizes have changed substantially, which I don't believe to be the case.)

MattGaiser 5y ago

I am curious why nobody tries to build a workforce for non urgent projects out of this group. I see charities scrimping and saving to pay for highly skilled people that they really do not need on a full time basis and must scratch my head and wonder why. You could pay 60,000 for a not great dev. Or you could pay 30,000 for a part time dev and could easily land someone who regularly earns 150K.

vgeek 5y ago
I've pondered the same exact thing. I've had jobs where my superiors could see my immediate impact and it was still impossible to take a reduced salary to have a 3/4 day week-- "it wouldn't be fair to everyone else" or "we'd like to have you here every day" even after my disclosing that there weren't really 40 hours of productive tasks I could do each week after automating most of my day to day. I've tried both with companies offering lower salaries with positions I'm wildly overqualified for and roles where they seemed interested but couldn't match my prior salary-- neither has worked across multiple attempts. Negotiating 1-2 days/week remote was easier than less hours for less money. From discussing with coworkers from former jobs, the people that I worked with who most want to return to office (& force their reports back, too) are those who focused on politics over productivity. Some people work better in office, some better remote. Why not actually evaluate on a case by case basis or worker's preference instead of only management's preference?
- the_gipsy 5y ago
  Maybe this "working less" undertone of remote should be taken seriously, from both sides of the argument. As you say, it's nearly impossible to negotiate for less working hours. The only real possibility I see is freelancing/contracting, and the best bet is taking some months off (or a sabattical) - not working less days per week. With high salaries in IT naturally there came perks like flexible hours. This meant that nobody really checks if you work 8, 7, or 6 hours in a day anymore. Of course, if you'd consistently come in say for ~4h a day, then there would be trouble because Jerry over there clocks in his 8h and that wouldn't be fair. Now with remote work, the "hours worked" are mostly invisible and barely guessable by your peers and managers. The bottom line, personally, is that we want to work less time. I take a salary that is lower than FAANG in a remote startup, but I and my peers work less hours, yet our boss is happy. If I could work for 4h/d (or 3 days/week) at some corp, in office, I would do it. But that's just not gonna happen right now. And here is my hot take: I think that big corps are just too successful in squeezing out so much time from their employees, especially with the american mindset of "working hard" / crazy 80+h weeks.

colordrops 5y ago

You've nailed it. I can't afford my mortgage and kids school if I take a startup gig unless I start burning my investments. It's way too risky, especially since the investments are doing well. I totally would love to work for a startup, even do longer hours, but no one is willing to make offers for people in my class. I'd even be willing to burn some of my current investment if the startup gave a serious equity chunk, but the offers ive been seeing would require years of steady and significant growth for the equity to match my current FAANG comp. And that's just match, not exceed. Startups are way too greedy with equity.

runako 5y ago
> Startups are way too greedy with equity. And this has gotten worse. During the .com explosion, the war for talent saw younger engineers (<= 5 years of experience) were getting 1%-3% in companies that had already received VC funding, while also getting raises from other firms. Compared to the grants on offer today, the risk/reward is completely inverted.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  The valuations today are just so much higher though. Pets.com, the poster child of dotcom era excess IPO'd at a $250mm valuation. Companies today are raising 2x or 3x that in their series C these days! 1Password picked up $620mm in their series C just the other day.
  - runako 5y ago
    This means the early employees today are producing more economic value for shareholders and are being paid less for creating more value! (Unless early team sizes have changed substantially, which I don't believe to be the case.)